In the latest measure affecting global intellectual property protection, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin announced a new law allowing “parallel imports.” This action will permit Russian importation of goods without the permission of the rightful trademark owners. The new law was enacted in response to sanctions placed on the Russian economy after recent events. It seeks to satisfy the demand for goods that arose after famous brands like Apple, Nike, McDonald's, Coca-Cola, and Pepsi temporarily suspended sales in the Russia. Practical application of the law could cause trademark owners to lose control of their brands, and possibly pave the way for other infringement, including exportation of “gray market” infringing goods.
Russia’s Ministry of Industry and Trade will issue a list of products allowed into the country, regardless of subsisting trademark registrations. It is expected the list will focus on consumer products for which prices have drastically risen in recent weeks.
The legal importation of what are considered “gray market” goods - not counterfeit goods, but genuine products that are sold outside of the control of the trademark owners –will help alleviate the shortages of goods in Russia, but it will further erode the protection offered to IP owners operating in Russia prior to the recently enacted sanctions.
Foreign IP protection became an issue on February 28, 2022 when the Office of Foreign Asset Control (“OFAC”) declared that U.S. citizens and companies cannot engage in transactions with Russia’s Central Bank of the Russian Federation (“CBRF”). Rospatent, Russia’s version of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), deposits legal fees it receives into the CBRF.
The OFAC temporarily backtracked the regulations affecting IP owners. On March 3, 2022, it announced U.S. citizens can pay taxes, fees, and duties and receive permits, licenses, registrations, or certifications through June 24, 2022, “provided such transactions are ordinarily incident and necessary to such persons’ day-to-day operations in the Russian Federation.” As such, IP owners can pay legal fees to Rospatent over the next several months.
Russia’s government took further action on March 6, announcing citizens of foreign countries that commit “unfriendly action” will not receive royalties from licensing of patents, meaning U.S. IP owners will not be compensated for infringements taking place in Russia. Trademarks have also been targets. While there has been no specific announcement, the Russian Trademark Office has been flooded with trademark applications seeking to register established brands like McDonald’s. A recent decision by a provincial arbitration court in Kirov indicates deteriorating protection for foreign-owned registrations. British company Entertainment One owns copyrights and trademarks for Peppa Pig and Daddy Pig, characters on a popular children’s cartoon show. The company was defeated in its dispute due to “restrictive” sanctions and “unfriendly actions of the United States of America and affiliated foreign countries,” as set forth in the legal documents.
Because each country has its own IP regime, world conflicts can impact global IP rights. The long-lasting consequences on IP strategy remain to be seen. However, if Russia’s policies continue to diminish foreign IP rights, it will become necessary for U.S. businesses to consider new filing tactics and enforcement methods for intellectual property protection.
- Senior Attorney
Carey Kulp, CIPP/US, helps clients protect one of their most valuable assets: their brands.
Drawing on more than 10 years’ experience in intellectual property law, Carey counsels her clients on strategies to identify and develop ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- Artificial Ingenuity: Is Generative AI the New 'Person of Ordinary Skill' in Patent Law?
- The Expiration of the After Final Consideration Pilot Program 2.0 (AFCP 2.0)
- Patently Unclear: Why Result-Oriented Claims Don’t Make the Cut Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
- Make Your Invention The Priority, What Track-1 Can Do For You!
- Navigating Final Rejections in Patent Prosecution: AFCP 2.0 vs. 37 CFR § 1.116
- A Clear POV on Patent Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101: Contour’s Claims Zoom Back Into Focus in Contour v. GoPro
- Understanding the Recent Federal Circuit Decision in Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. on Patent Ineligibility
- Federal Circuit Clarifies Obviousness-Type Double Patenting in Allergan v. MSN Laboratories: The Impact of Patent Term Adjustments on First-Filed Patents
- The Risks and Rewards of Using Open Source Software
- Don't Let Your Trade Secrets Walk Out the Door With Your Employees: Patent Them!
Archives
- November 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- October 2022
- August 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- June 2019
- April 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- October 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017